OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Gary Gutful]

QLD didn't disappoint.

 

[Chipmunk]

Personally I can stand tall that my electorate of Wentworth and those adjoining of Kingsford Smith, Grayndler and Sydney all voted yes. Others will need to reflect on what brought them to vote no, when polling was once suggesting a positive result.

I think there is a very different view of Australia and where it is at amongst the inner cities of the big cities (dare I say it, the metropolitan "Aleets") and the political class (i.e. the ACT), than there is in the suburbs and regions of mainstream Australia.

 

[Bandwagon]

That highlights it had support as a concept and I reckon if people knew its makeup, the types of issues it would advise on and how it operates, I think that support would have continued. I can only assume that the voting RCG public assumed that all of that information would be know before going to the polls. People have overwhelmingly voted against it in its proposed form and that support you mentioned started to dwindle pretty soon after that (about 12 months ago).

It was still polling at 60% in March, yeah support had been falling, but not precipitously




It really didn't begin to collapse until then, and that was when the Nationals first, followed by the Libs announced they'd appose it and started actively campaigning against it.

Up until that point, there was simply no "no" argument.

In absence of that, obviously opinion will be skewed towards yes. My point I make there is not that it couldn't have been handled better, clearly it could, and I've said as much previously in this thread and others. The point is that to sit back now and say it was a poor move and was always going to fail is revisionism at it's finest.

It's ( changing the constitution ) just not an easy thing to do, our history is full of failed referendum, far far more than those that have passed. Would we judge all of those as destined to fail now in hindsight? Or indeed a waste of money because they did not pass?

The government could have, as you suggest, legislated the voice, get it operating and let people judge on the result, but I dare say that would have taken many years and would have meant them going back upon their commitment to go to a referendum early in their first term. A commitment that at the time had overwhelming and for the most part bi-partisan support.

My opinion, in the end the LNP sunk it, they did so to damage the government and for no other reason, and if you buy into that narrative, you reward their obstructionism. Dutton is going all Uncle Tones part II, that worked for Tones, but despite this result, I don't believe the electorate will fall for the same steaming pile of dung again so soon. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Bandwagon]

If indigenous people make up 3.8% of the population and wanted a voice to parliament could some people who identify themselves by religion rather than ethnicity try and do the same when the become a significant minority, say 10% or more?

What’s stopping them applying pressure to the government?

Like say white Christians?

 

[strider]

That highlights it had support as a concept and I reckon if people knew its makeup, the types of issues it would advise on and how it operates, I think that support would have continued. I can only assume that the voting RCG public assumed that all of that information would be know before going to the polls. People have overwhelmingly voted against it in its proposed form and that support you mentioned started to dwindle pretty soon after that (about 12 months ago).

Exactly ... people can deflect all the shit in the world about excuses why this didnt pass .... at the end of the day, the arse fell out of it cos they had zero detail ..... just adding recognition to the constitution would have been a cakewalk .... but it was more than that and when they didnt have anything to offer up, people started to ponder if just trusting hand waving politicians was a good idea

 

[Happy MEel]

It was still polling at 60% in March, yeah support had been falling, but not precipitously


View attachment 80723

It really didn't begin to collapse until then, and that was when the Nationals first, followed by the Libs announced they'd appose it and started actively campaigning against it.

Up until that point, there was simply no "no" argument.

In absence of that, obviously opinion will be skewed towards yes. My point I make there is not that it couldn't have been handled better, clearly it could, and I've said as much previously in this thread and others. The point is that to sit back now and say it was a poor move and was always going to fail is revisionism at it's finest.

It's ( changing the constitution ) just not an easy thing to do, our history is full of failed referendum, far far more than those that have passed. Would we judge all of those as destined to fail now in hindsight? Or indeed a waste of money because they did not pass?

The government could have, as you suggest, legislated the voice, get it operating and let people judge on the result, but I dare say that would have taken many years and would have meant them going back upon their commitment to go to a referendum early in their first term. A commitment that at the time had overwhelming and for the most part bi-partisan support.

My opinion, in the end the LNP sunk it, they did so to damage the government and for no other reason, and if you buy into that narrative, you reward their obstructionism. Dutton is going all Uncle Tones part II, that worked for Tones, but despite this result, I don't believe the electorate will fall for the same steaming pile of dung again so soon. Time will tell I guess.

Pretty much agree with this but like I said, I think the concept of First Nations people having a say in matters that affect them generally has support. The issue was in rhe detail (and lack thereof) that had most Australians concerned. There were ways of alleviating those fears, which the Government failed to deliver.

If nothing else, they could have released a draft plan of what the Voice would look like in its initial form under the current government’s proposal, should the Yes vote get up.

 

[the phantom menace]

but it was more than that and when they didnt have anything to offer up, people started to ponder if just trusting hand waving politicians was a good idea

So they started to trust the cranky frowning politicians instead?

 

[Happy MEel]

Exactly ... people can deflect all the shit in the world about excuses why this didnt pass .... at the end of the day, the arse fell out of it cos they had zero detail ..... just adding recognition to the constitution would have been a cakewalk .... but it was more than that and when they didnt have anything to offer up, people started to ponder if just trusting hand waving politicians was a good idea

Spot on. The general public think politicians are slimey lying merkins at the best of times (largely because they are). They went to this referendum expecting the population to blindly trust them if the vote gets up. They placed far too much faith in the voting public’s faith in them.

 

[Gronk]

I think there is a very different view of Australia and where it is at amongst the inner cities of the big cities (dare I say it, the metropolitan "Aleets") and the political class (i.e. the ACT), than there is in the suburbs and regions of mainstream Australia.

Latte sipping virtue signallers. We only voted yes for the pats on the back.


“He said with a sawdusty sneeze, I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.”

 

[the phantom menace]

If indigenous people make up 3.8% of the population and wanted a voice to parliament could some people who identify themselves by religion rather than ethnicity try and do the same when the become a significant minority, say 10% or more?

Is this serious opinion, or attempted satire?

The whole point was recognition for our country's First Nations people - there only is or ever will be one part of the population that are descendants of the original inhabitants of our lands.

 

[Happy MEel]

So they started to trust the cranky frowning politicians instead?

No, they didn’t trust either side and so opted for the status quo. That’s a somewhat reasonable position to take with a change to such an important document like the constitution and is why it is so hard to get it amended.

Perhaps the next government to look at this will learn from this f**k up…or perhaps they won’t.

 

[the phantom menace]

Dumb as it was, "If you don't know..." was the campaign masterstroke imo.

Only 8 out of 44 referendums have succeeded in Australia over the past 123 years. Even Menzies lost one about Communism in the 1950s.

So I guess it's nothing really to do with what the Governments learn or don't learn... and only (more) time will tell if First Nations recognition is ever attempted again or achieved in our country.

 

[Gronk]

Spot on. The general public think politicians are slimey lying merkins at the best of times (largely because they are). They went to this referendum expecting the population to blindly trust them if the vote gets up. They placed far too much faith in the voting public’s faith in them.

So playing devils advocate here, what is the slimy-worst-case-scenario that everyone has now successfully avoided ?

 

[Bandwagon]

Pretty much agree with this but like I said, I think the concept of First Nations people having a say in matters that affect them generally has support. The issue was in rhe detail (and lack thereof) that had most Australians concerned. There were ways of alleviating those fears, which the Government failed to deliver.

If nothing else, they could have released a draft plan of what the Voice would look like in its initial form under the current government’s proposal, should the Yes vote get up.

I guess it boils down to how much "detail" is enough, or even how much is constructive. Ultimately the most detailed would be to release the draft legislation, but for mine that would have served to muddy the waters more than clear them. The reasoning being that you then introduce a whole heap of points that can be easily misconstrued, too many people simply don't have much or any real understanding of how legislation works, let alone it's relationship to the constitution, it would become a honeypot for bad actors to twist into false narratives.

On the other hand they did produce an overview of the "detail" of how it would work, and it's been there for quite some time.

https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles

My guess is that most people who clamored for "the detail' never actually sought it out, and certainly didn't read that page, they were or are content enough with the claim that it didn't exist. I say this because so many of the "questions" I've read as to how it's gonna work are answered there in bullet point form.

I'd be real interested to know the number of unique visitors from Australian IP addresses' visited that page.

 

[T-Boon]

The question should have been “do you want this voice thing, and also do you want Brqd Arthur fired?”

 

[strider]

So they started to trust the cranky frowning politicians instead?

Or maybe just, dont change the constitution until you know wtf the change means

 

[hindy111]

So playing devils advocate here, what is the slimy-worst-case-scenario that everyone has now successfully avoided ?

Not sure. Same as most other people. That's the point

 

[the phantom menace]

Or maybe just, dont change the constitution until you know wtf the change means

*people can learn

To be honest, the 96 word change in the Constitution was pretty simple, for people that actually wanted to understand what it meant....

No referendum has passed in Australia without bilateral support from both main political parties. Dutton took his down a path of sowing confusion to try and score a point for his political future.

 

[Happy MEel]

I guess it boils down to how much "detail" is enough, or even how much is constructive. Ultimately the most detailed would be to release the draft legislation, but for mine that would have served to muddy the waters more than clear them. The reasoning being that you then introduce a whole heap of points that can be easily misconstrued, too many people simply don't have much or any real understanding of how legislation works, let alone it's relationship to the constitution, it would become a honeypot for bad actors to twist into false narratives.

On the other hand they did produce an overview of the "detail" of how it would work, and it's been there for quite some time.

https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles

My guess is that most people who clamored for "the detail' never actually sought it out, and certainly didn't read that page, they were or are content enough with the claim that it didn't exist. I say this because so many of the "questions" I've read as to how it's gonna work are answered there in bullet point form.

I'd be real interested to know the number of unique visitors from Australian IP addresses' visited that page.

To be honest, a “principles” document like that is basically meaningless until you know the detail of how it works. It sets a direction or way forward, like a strategic plan. I think the concern falls underneath these broad feel good statements. Hence why legislating it first would have been a much better idea. Anyway, it’s done now so we move forward.

 

[Gronk]

Not sure. Same as most other people. That's the point

This is why referendums historically almost always fail. This is why you need bipartisan support from both sides of politics.

So the majority of Australians voted no. Democracy, fair enough.

What is the cause of celebration here ? The fact that slimy politicians can’t do slimy things because the indigenous people have a voice to parliament? Or that they had a win in politics and that the Australian people had been swayed (played) ?